Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
uziq
Member
+300|2137
i've just discovered that the case/GPU RGB's sync up to music and pulse with the beat.

ok, these zoomers are onto something.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2405
I really like the Zoomers. They seem more like Millennials than the Gen Xers.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2405
So I decided to build a new computer too since the one I have has older insufficient hardware for modern games. More specifically Battlefield 1, 5, and Call of Duty MW blue screened every time I try to play them.

MSI MPG X570 Gaming Edge WiFi Motherboard
Ryzen 3600
Corsair LPX 32GB DRAM 3000MHz (2 x 16)
Nvidia 1660 6 XC Gaming 6GB
CORSAIR CARBIDE 275R Mid-Tower Gaming Case

Pretty much the same setup as Uzique but a little different. I wanted a more advanced motherboard that will support later AM4 CPUs if I feel like making an incremental upgrade sometime in the future. I also fear my blue screen issue is related to my motherboard so I don't want to cheap out and regret it later. The GPU is on the cheaper end of the scale. I absolutely refuse to spend the amount of money being asked for higher end GPUs. The entry level GPU was still the most expensive part.

On a side note, I am really glad the case I have does not have RGB. Hate RGB.
uziq
Member
+300|2137
yep, solid machine! i'm finding 32gb of RAM is really overkill for my windows machine. slightly disappointed there but hope the 'future proofing' is solid (always a dubious concept, though, with the asymmetrical way tech and the tech market/pricing develops). mac OSX is FAR better at utilising RAM to its full capacity with the way it uses all the memory you give it to varying degrees of 'memory pressure'. running multiple desktops on windows, all my work apps, creative suites, and a game at once, i'm maybe tickling 20Gb of RAM usage. obviously the real game changer is if you do heavy-duty photo/video editing or production work. for the rest, realistically i am never topping 16Gb in my routine usage, and on the rare occasions i do, a page file swap with the new lightning-fast SSDs wouldn't hamper performance at all.

ryzen 6 is really pegged in a novel way, unlike Intel, to the frequency of the RAM you give it. 3200Mhz is pretty much the accepted standard. 3600Mhz gives a slightly better performance again. essentially, the frequency of the CPU memory surrounding the cores should be in a 1:1 ratio with your mobo RAM. this is where i would probably say 16Gb of better-performance RAM > 32Gb of slower RAM.

it's highly likely that B450-type motherboards will support Ryzen 4/Zen 3+. AMD promised support until end of 2020 (pre-corona timeline) and the zen 3+ are going to be the final socket AM4/DDR4 CPUs they do; it's unlikely they'll abandon 1/2 the motherboard support for their final AM4-type CPUs. the main thing is to buy a quality motherboard that has the VRM power and efficiency to scale up to 8/12 core (or to overclock or keep low temps; whatever your priority happens to be). from what i could tell, there's very little difference between X570/B450 at the moment (it comes down to PCI-4 support, which your budget graphics card isn't much concerned with). we probably spent about the same there because i went with a mITX form-factor, which adds a space premium.

ditto your sentiments with the RGB. there is zero in my case and only a little on my GPU/mobo, which i've turned off now. the entire machine is blacked out and silent -- how computers should be. maybe my tastes have been set by using sleek blacked-out mac hardware for years.

oh what size resolution do you intend to game on? that GPU is pretty much already going out of date. you spent more on your RAM/mobo than your GPU? i'd much rather have 16Gb of high-performance RAM and 8-12Gb of VRAM to game on current-gen ryzen/resolutions, to be honest. 95% of the time you're going to have 16Gb of RAM doing nothing and the hardware you have right now, in the present, are not performing optimally. and that for the sake of a possibly-maybe future-gen CPU investment?

you're right that the GPU market is basically flooded with mid-range cards, more than any consumer really needs tbh, and then has a top-tier of $500+ cards with pretty much silly returns. but an extra $40-50 in that crucial mid-range bracket can get you a decent performance difference. if you're gaming at, say, 1440p, then there's a good performance differential. you are far more likely to be throttled in your performance in the next 3-5 years by your GPU than by needing a fancy latest-gen CPU. games still barely manage to use 4-cores efficiently at this point. desktop browsing and tasks are basically never going to need more than 6/8 cores (they are all designed for mobile CPUs at this point).

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 02:34:38)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4791|eXtreme to the maX
I could probably justify a new machine, but Quadro cards are so very different from gaming cards, a high level CAD card is still shit by gaming measure. Then again gaming cards seem to work fine for CAD, if noisy.
I am doing some graphics intensive CAD now, and its nice being able to run it at max resolution (3840x2160 bitches) with no stuttering on a base level card, so for that I don't need to upgrade at all.
Best option is to give it a year and see how it goes, after switching to Win 10 everything is actually more stable, if my micro-business can justify it I'll be able to pay it out of tax.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-04-12 02:26:06)

Epstein didn't kill himself
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2405
My motherboard is $199 while the GPU Is $230.  The RTX 2060 is $330 and still 6 GB. If I wanted 8 GB Nvidia GPU the nearest one in price is $430. If I am going to spend an extra $200, I would upgrade to a fancy fancier CPU. Lord knows those things age better than GPUs. The motherboard has PCIe 4.0 while I think the 450s don't too.

I don't mind playing at lower graphics settings. I can't even tell the difference between a lot of the settings either without a side by side.

The reason why I went with 32 GB of RAM is because my current AM3 PC has 32GB and I refuse to go backwards in numbers.
uziq
Member
+300|2137
why do you need PCIe 4.0? certainly not for a 1660. i'm using M.2 SSD storage on PCIe 3.0 and it is still blisteringly fast, much better than non-PCIe storage. PCIe 4.0 is still 'future potential' technology whereas you've forked out for that motherboard and stuck it with an underperforming CPU/RAM combo and a mid-range GPU that will soon be nudged out of benchmarks.

slightly strange order of priorities when you intend to replace the CPU with a future design before getting the most of your hardware now. but okay.

refusing to go backwards is just plain silly if you don't use 16Gb of RAM. you don't get any performance increase by having un-used RAM; it's either in use or it's sitting there like a high-tech paperweight (on windows, anyway). didn't you do some process monitoring on your old machine and monitor your use % ? when buying my machine and getting spec advice from people online (which i badly needed, having to catch-up on a decade's worth of advances in two weeks), they kept saying about RAM: 'if you need 32Gb or 64Gb, you'll already know'. this just seemed cryptic and stupid to me -- but it's oddly completely true. RAM is an invisible component when it's working properly: if your machine isn't hanging or pausing to sweat and lift weights on 16Gb, then you literally do not need 32Gb of RAM.

i wouldn't say this even matters but you have effectively gimped your CPU performance with the way Ryzen works by using 3000Mhz RAM. and you've spent $80 more on a motherboard than you need to for the promise of a brand new PCI-e 4.0 bandwidth protocol, which seems bizarre given your other choices.  if you were going to insist on 32 Gb of RAM, 'because the numbers shouldn't go backwards', then you shouldn't have cheaped out on low-performance RAM. 3000Mhz RAM was mid-range 3/4 years ago. it's silly to talk about future-proofing your machine with next-gen CPU upgrades when your current-gen AM4 ryzen is being throttled.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 02:49:11)

uziq
Member
+300|2137

Dilbert_X wrote:

I could probably justify a new machine, but Quadro cards are so very different from gaming cards, a high level CAD card is still shit by gaming measure. Then again gaming cards seem to work fine for CAD, if noisy.
I am doing some graphics intensive CAD now, and its nice being able to run it at max resolution (3840x2160 bitches) with no stuttering on a base level card, so for that I don't need to upgrade at all.
Best option is to give it a year and see how it goes, after switching to Win 10 everything is actually more stable, if my micro-business can justify it I'll be able to pay it out of tax.
the quadro cards are insanely nice but a highly specific instrument, you're right.

for what it's worth in the vast majority of scientific modelling, big data work and design that i see come through my journals, most researchers and labs are using consumer-level GPU tech, e.g. high-end 'gaming' cards. they are very very good thesedays.

the vast majority of 'design' in the forms of photo work, 4k/8k video editing, 3D rendering, etc, thesedays is done effectively on mobile GPUs built into macbook pros (with native display resolutions similar to yours). you really don't need a quadro just to run CAD.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 02:44:14)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4791|eXtreme to the maX
The sales volumes and competition is there in gaming cards, much less so in CAD, so far I've found Nvidia gaming cards work well for CAD and burned out a few CAD cards when they seemed to be doing very little and badly.
Also CBA upgrading my PSU, I'll just kill something else in the process, so bleh I'll work my way through Arma 3 and then see if I can be bothered.

There are compatibility issues between CAD software and cards, or there used to be, its just a whole lot less trouble to have a certified card and driver than have an incompatible one which causes graphics issues and system instability - I've had enough of that.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-04-12 02:49:41)

Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+300|2137
you can get gold/platinum rated (modular) PSUs now for sub-£100. hardware is also way more energy efficient. current-gen CPUs and high-performance GPUs are a dream in terms of power consumption compared to a decade ago. no more 1000W PSUs for monstrous SLI setups. you can run an 8-core machine with a top-end card on a well-rated 650W. in fact, the 8-core Ryzen are considerably more power efficient than the cheaper 6-core. it's barmy.

this is one area where you've got to concede that your close allies, the chinese, have been a big help. i think the 'best' 3-4 PSU manufacturers are all sourcing their coils from the same chinese supplier.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 02:52:49)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4791|eXtreme to the maX
Pretty sure most of the real work has been done in California.

Interesting how poor value CAD 'workstations' seem, I don't think I ever had a good one.
https://centralinnovation.com/hardware/workstations/
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+300|2137
anything sold directly to business or industry can safely be assumed to be about 40% tax write-off. the prices are always insane.

Pretty sure most of the real work has been done in California.
not true at all. china has top-rate electrical engineers at this point, whether you like to admit it or not (the harbin institute and similar is putting out just as much research as MIT; i publish a fucking tonne of it in the same journals which MIT scientists opt for). california sounds great if you're a designer who wants to sip chai lattes and obsess over the gradient of curves, though.

in audio, for example, there's lots of companies in places like shenzhen engaged in a little arms race with one another. it hasn't taken them very long to catch-up to their western equivalents. designing and making step-up/step-down transformers for a PSU or an amplifier in 2020 is not exactly quantum computing.

isn't your weird little victorian race hierarchy always positing that the china-man has advanced IQ for math? the epigenetic influence of abacus-use, etc?

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 03:19:26)

coke
Aye up duck!
+440|5394|England. Stoke
Yeah i'd drop down to 16gb of ram and spend more on the gfx card, look at one of the amd ones like the 5600xt or the 5700
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4791|eXtreme to the maX
Yeah I don't know. Atom-scale chip design is a little different from wirewound transformers, and I think the west still owns the IP on the IC design and the Fab processes.

Benchmarking very roughly for gaming purposes a $1500 CAD card is about equivalent to a $300 gaming card. Maybe I'll try one of them, I dunno.
Probably easier just to buy a complete up to date machine.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+300|2137

coke wrote:

Yeah i'd drop down to 16gb of ram and spend more on the gfx card, look at one of the amd ones like the 5600xt or the 5700
at the budget he's working in, it would be a tremendous difference to have 16Gb of proper-performance RAM and a better graphics card.

he's paid 2x as much for the mobo as necessary when the mobo's main advantages are PCI-e 4.0 and the ability to go up to 5000Mhz-clock RAM.

not really relevant advantages when he's using 3000Mhz RAM (B450 mobos support up to 4000Mhz). if the budget was that tight, 16Gb @ 3600-4000Mhz would be much better than slow, largely unused 32Gb, which would drag CPU performance in all tasks.

i have a few red flags/no nos in PC builds, and spending as much on a motherboard as a CPU is one of them. spending as much on a mobo as a GPU is very questionable.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 03:29:43)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2405

uziq wrote:

why do you need PCIe 4.0? certainly not for a 1660. i'm using M.2 SSD storage on PCIe 3.0 and it is still blisteringly fast, much better than non-PCIe storage. PCIe 4.0 is still 'future potential' technology whereas you've forked out for that motherboard and stuck it with an underperforming CPU/RAM combo and a mid-range GPU that will soon be nudged out of benchmarks.

slightly strange order of priorities when you intend to replace the CPU with a future design before getting the most of your hardware now. but okay.

refusing to go backwards is just plain silly if you don't use 16Gb of RAM. you don't get any performance increase by having un-used RAM; it's either in use or it's sitting there like a high-tech paperweight (on windows, anyway). didn't you do some process monitoring on your old machine and monitor your use % ? when buying my machine and getting spec advice from people online (which i badly needed, having to catch-up on a decade's worth of advances in two weeks), they kept saying about RAM: 'if you need 32Gb or 64Gb, you'll already know'. this just seemed cryptic and stupid to me -- but it's oddly completely true. RAM is an invisible component when it's working properly: if your machine isn't hanging or pausing to sweat and lift weights on 16Gb, then you literally do not need 32Gb of RAM.

i wouldn't say this even matters but you have effectively gimped your CPU performance with the way Ryzen works by using 3000Mhz RAM. and you've spent $80 more on a motherboard than you need to for the promise of a brand new PCI-e 4.0 bandwidth protocol, which seems bizarre given your other choices.  if you were going to insist on 32 Gb of RAM, 'because the numbers shouldn't go backwards', then you shouldn't have cheaped out on low-performance RAM. 3000Mhz RAM was mid-range 3/4 years ago. it's silly to talk about future-proofing your machine with next-gen CPU upgrades when your current-gen AM4 ryzen is being throttled.
Good point about the ram. I cancelled the 3000Mhz for 3200Mhz of the same brand and amount for a $3 difference. I am still sticking with the fancier motherboard. I can stick anything in or out of it as time goes on. Motherboards are forever. I don't want to save $50 today and be upset I can't put in a Ryzen 4xxx when the prices bottom out someday.

And I am drawing a definite line when it comes to the GPU. Maybe one day they will release a mid-range pcie4 whatever GPU but there will never be a day I am going to spend double the price of a part for 2 extra GB of VRAM. My baseline for a GPU will forever be the 8800 GTX which retailed for $599. A flagship card shouldn't cost $1200 like the 2080ti and a mid-range 2070 shouldn't cost $599. I rather play at lower settings than change from that principal and acknowledge the gouging.

And if you want to monitor your in game %, download MSI afterburner. It is free and works with any brand of card.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2405

coke wrote:

Yeah i'd drop down to 16gb of ram and spend more on the gfx card, look at one of the amd ones like the 5600xt or the 5700
I have had issues with AMD driver's before which is why I switched to Nvidia which I have never had issues with.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2405
Hold on give me a few minutes. I am going to tinker more with my order.

You talked me into faster ram.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-04-12 03:37:27)

uziq
Member
+300|2137
you don't have to spend double the price for 2 extra Gb of VRAM. AMD have a huge range of cards in the $250-400 bracket which have 8Gb of RAM.

you've pretty arbitrarily insisted on having 32Gb RAM and sticking with nvidia. confusing choices but it's done now. i would only absolutely insist on nvidia if i had an already premium-price GSync monitor.

socket B450 will support ryzen 4xxxx. with that said, all this talk of next-gen CPUs is pretty much pointless. how many people absolutely needed kabylake to replace their skylake intel processors? a processor is pretty much good for the entire life of a machine, 4-5 years easily. there is not going to be some leap forward in desktop computing that means you absolutely must have a 12-core ryzen to replace your 6-core. AMD have promised a decent performance leap with Zen2-->Zen3, yep, but a 3600 is absolutely fine for everything. it will not throttle you in a game. i would only even be concerned about the potential upgrades if i were doing daily rendering/crunching work, in which an extra 20% is really going to shave productive hours of time. for the vast majority of users, it's just neat benchmarks and better numbers. by the time you find your CPU throttling your tasks and being a drag, DDR4 is going to be history. it's always that way.

if you have a well-cooled case and a power-efficient mobo, you can OC the 3600 into 3600X territory easily. that's saved you $40 just for a better-binned and higher-stock component. mine is running at 4.0Ghz stable (it's 3.6Ghz stock). but i do also have memory at 3800Mhz. you ideally want a 1:1 ratio for best performance. you've just stuck a 3.6 Ghz processor that wants to boost up to 4.0-4.1Ghz under load with 3000Mhz RAM. the ryzen CPUs do not behave like intel CPUs. the RAM is a very important component.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 03:41:42)

uziq
Member
+300|2137

SuperJail Warden wrote:

You talked me into faster ram.
yeah i don't think you should swap out your motherboard. it's a good motherboard. but if there are budgetary constraints and reasons for why you've gone with slow RAM and only 6Gb of VRAM, then i would start to reconsider. i agree that it is good for peace of mind to have a very capable, stable motherboard that is not going to pop an aorta or frustrate you with limited BIOS options.

again, though, all of AM4 is being supported by AMD for ryzen 4xxx. i'm not sure where you're getting the information from that only the more expensive PCIe 4.0 mobos are going support 4xxx. it makes no business sense for them to renege on supporting B450s for the last iteration of AM4. it's the vast majority of the consumer-base who would possibly look to upgrade. good luck trying to sell people on the enthusiast-grade expensive mobo option for the last generation of a processor.

fair enough if you don't want to max out your graphics settings. on a high enough resolution you can do away with most of the GPU-intensive aliasing stuff, anyway. at 1440p wide i seldom ever go above 8xMSAA. realistically i am not seeing much difference for the considerably more taxing 16x options. with that said, 6Gb of VRAM gets eaten quickly in current-gen games. the latest cod:warzone title uses 90% of my 8Gb of VRAM.

i would say that, for the next few years, 1440p and 8Gb of VRAM are going to become the norm. 1080p has been last decade's standard.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 03:57:06)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2405

Uzique wrote:

but it's done now.
Actually no it's not. I have Amazon and things are all delayed a week. So I can cancel and order freely for awhile.

Okay so I ordered 3600 MHz (2x8) RAM, I rolled over the budget to get a 1660 ti which while still 6 GB, is a 17% improvement over the 1660. The cost of the nearest 8 GB card is still almost double and I can live on lower settings.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2405
I have the money to get the 8GB card but as I said multiple times I will not go along with the price gouging. The GPU I bought is already equal to the price of the fancy motherboard and faster ram you talked me into combined.

I am not happy about how the GPU market is and the slow advances. I have been very impressed with the pricing and generational gains of Ryzen though so I have no problem getting fancy with the stuff even if I don't need it for another 8 years (the length of time between this upgrade and last).

As for your 450, I think you are being a little over optimistic about potential Ryzen 4xxx support. The 450 wasn't even the best option in it's generation the 470 was.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-04-12 04:21:42)

uziq
Member
+300|2137

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Uzique wrote:

but it's done now.
Actually no it's not. I have Amazon and things are all delayed a week. So I can cancel and order freely for awhile.

Okay so I ordered 3600 MHz (2x8) RAM, I rolled over the budget to get a 1660 ti which while still 6 GB, is a 17% improvement over the 1660. The cost of the nearest 8 GB card is still almost double and I can live on lower settings.
i think you made a good decision here. the better-speed RAM will give you more of a performance boost in almost every single use-case scenario. you will not miss the extra 16Gb RAM. i assume you have current-gen SSD storage already, as it's not in your build, and windows can page file into that when it really needs the overspill (which will be seldom). or you can, you know, close a program or whatever to free up the RAM. having good-speed memory that will play nice with your CPU is going to be a lot more use than having a lot of unused slow stuff sitting around.

one thing worth mentioning with RAM usage is chrome. it is unique among everyday applications, including browsers, for eating RAM. it's terribly inefficient. upping tabs just seems to infinitely chew more RAM. i've never used chrome so this was never something for me to think about. i think the only advantage it confers is slightly better video codec support as standard. honestly i would just use another one of the 3/4 great alternative browsers, rather than spend 2x as much for RAM just for a web browser. you can always open that 4K video that won't play properly in firefox in a separate chrome window. spending 20Gb of RAM because for 15 reddit tabs seems stupid.

i think the entire moore's law-like assumption that RAM needs are going to keep doubling every few years is actually reaching a wall at this point. we already have 4k/8k video, web design standards and web browsers have been locked into place for years; application GUIs and office suites etc are all just much of the same, refinements of the same thing. the doubling from 16-->32Gb is likely not going to come until there's some major overhaul in operating system design. i think it's pretty telling that apple, who hard-solder all their components onto their mainboards, are still opting for 16Gb as the standard even on their top-end machines. 32gb and 64gb is for the people using adobe or video/design software that has its own heavily intensive memory caching needs.

on top of that, it's trivial to replace RAM in the future, or to expand it (if you have 4 slots), when it becomes apparent that you definitely do need it.

if i were to do my build again i would probably downsize to 16Gb of RAM and double my M.2 SSD to 1Tb, instead. i was really surprised by the size of current-gen games. the latest CoD game is like 180Gb. there goes one third of my brand new SSD.

As for your 450, I think you are being a little over optimistic about potential Ryzen 4xxx support. The 450 wasn't even the best option in it's generation the 470 was.
it's more a matter of manufacturers wanting to rewrite the BIOS than AMD's decision. it will be the same socket design. it's still a fundamentally better decision to spend your allocated budget on a mobo/CPU/RAM bundle that is going to work 100% optimally now than to sacrifice stuff for a CPU that's another year away, in any case. Ryzen 3xxx is not going to be trash-heaped in 1 or even 5 year's time. there is still considerable upgrade room even in going from a 6-core to a 12-core 3900X, for example.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 04:48:52)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2405

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Uzique wrote:

but it's done now.
Actually no it's not. I have Amazon and things are all delayed a week. So I can cancel and order freely for awhile.

Okay so I ordered 3600 MHz (2x8) RAM, I rolled over the budget to get a 1660 ti which while still 6 GB, is a 17% improvement over the 1660. The cost of the nearest 8 GB card is still almost double and I can live on lower settings.
i think you made a good decision here. the better-speed RAM will give you more of a performance boost in almost every single use-case scenario. you will not miss the extra 16Gb RAM. i assume you have current-gen SSD storage already, as it's not in your build, and windows can page file into that when it really needs the overspill (which will be seldom). or you can, you know, close a program or whatever to free up the RAM. having good-speed memory that will play nice with your CPU is going to be a lot more use than having a lot of unused slow stuff sitting around.

one thing worth mentioning with RAM usage is chrome. it is unique among everyday applications, including browsers, for eating RAM. it's terribly inefficient. upping tabs just seems to infinitely chew more RAM. i've never used chrome so this was never something for me to think about. i think the only advantage it confers is slightly better video codec support as standard. honestly i would just use another one of the 3/4 great alternative browsers, rather than spend 2x as much for RAM just for a web browser. you can always open that 4K video that won't play properly in firefox in a separate chrome window.

i think the entire moore's law-like assumption that RAM needs are going to keep doubling every few years is actually reaching a wall at this point. we already have 4k/8k video, web design standards and web browsers have been locked into place for years; application GUIs and office suites etc are all just much of the same, refinements of the same thing. the doubling from 16-->32Gb is likely not going to come until there's some major overhaul in operating system design. i think it's pretty telling that apple, who hard-solder all their components onto their mainboards, are still opting for 16Gb as the standard even on their top-end machines. 32gb and 64gb is for the people using adobe or video/design software that has its own heavily intensive memory caching needs.

on top of that, it's trivial to replace RAM in the future, or to expand it (if you have 4 slots), when it becomes apparent that you definitely do need it.

if i were to do my build again i would probably downsize to 16Gb of RAM and double my M.2 SSD to 1Tb, instead. i was really surprised by the size of current-gen games. the latest CoD game is like 180Gb. there goes one third of my brand new SSD.
Just by a second SSD and install games on it. The difference between a SATA SSD and M.2 one is only noticable if you use Afterburner to monitor FPS numbers.
uziq
Member
+300|2137
yep, or even external SSD storage works fine for launching games. i just wanted to keep my internal storage options minimal as i have a very small case. there are only 2 places to mount drives. i'm getting a synology NAS for all of my media and data storage, anyway.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard